Car powered by compressed air?

[John Larkin]

On Mon, 14 Mar 2011 17:48:14 -0700, Chieftain of the Carpet Crawlers
<theslipperman@thebarattheendoftheuniverse.org> wrote:

On Mon, 14 Mar 2011 10:21:29 -0400, Phil Hobbs
pcdhSpamMeSenseless@electrooptical.net> wrote:

Chieftain of the Carpet Crawlers wrote:
On Mon, 14 Mar 2011 09:51:27 -0400, Phil Hobbs
pcdhSpamMeSenseless@electrooptical.net> wrote:

Wimpie wrote:


When isothermally discharging this volume to 1 Barg, you will get 28
MJ from the tank. I can hardly imagine that the exhaust gas
temperature will be equal to ambient temperature, so the net energy
will be less.

For comparison, Petrol and Diesel have energy densities of about 35 MJ/
liter.

This shows that the amount of stored energy in the pressure cylinders
is less then that of 1liter petrol. To have a useful range, this
requires extreme change in driving behavior and car design.

Overall efficiency is another issue.
Air compression is inefficient if you can't use the generated heat.
You need to add more then twice the mechanical energy to the gas to
compress the air to 350 bar.

Given the efficiency of the compressor itself (friction, leakage, etc)
I have doubts whether they will reach 25% efficiency for pressurizing
the tanks. Of course, during winter the generated heat can be used for
heating.

When you "charge" the tanks at home (from the mains), you also have to
include the (low) overall efficiency of the electrical energy (from
power plant to the socket at home).

Besides some niches (explosive environments?), electric traction will
outperform the "air" variety in my opinion (better efficiency, better
control).


Not to mention being a lot safer in a collision.

Cheers

Phil Hobbs

Since they'll only do 30 kph when (lightly)loaded!

Tell that to the truck that knocks a hole in a 5000 psi carbon fibre air
tank a foot away from you!

Cheers

Phil Hobbs


Far better to use a standard reciprocating piston engine and compressed
Hydrogen.

I would sit at home, watching TV, and pumping the exercise bike to run
the H O separator each night.

Do the math on that! Oh, I forgot, you don't do math.

John

 

[Chieftain of the Carpet C]

On Mon, 14 Mar 2011 18:43:18 -0700, John Larkin
<jjlarkin@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:

LNG doesn't need to be at high pressure. It only needs to be cold.

Idiot! It has to be at high pressure in order to be in liquid state as
well!

That is why an LN (Liquid Nitrogen) truck that delivers cold stuff to
the laboratory IS an insulated, chilled tanker, and the LNG (Liquified
Natural Gas) truck IS NOT.

That is why Butane and Propane AND Freon remain in liquid form, even at
room temperature and standard pressure (not)! They evaporate fast
though!

What pressure is an enclosed vessel of Freon 12 at when the temperature
is 72 degrees F?

Yeah, you got it all on the ball, Johnny.

 

[Chieftain of the Carpet C]

On Mon, 14 Mar 2011 18:44:59 -0700, John Larkin
<jjlarkin@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:

On Mon, 14 Mar 2011 17:48:14 -0700, Chieftain of the Carpet Crawlers
theslipperman@thebarattheendoftheuniverse.org> wrote:


Far better to use a standard reciprocating piston engine and compressed
Hydrogen.

I would sit at home, watching TV, and pumping the exercise bike to run
the H O separator each night.

Do the math on that! Oh, I forgot, you don't do math.

John

So, you now have a problem with a standard engine using Hydrogen as a
fuel?

You're the idiot that needs to do the math.

 

[John Larkin]

On Mon, 14 Mar 2011 18:56:32 -0700, Chieftain of the Carpet Crawlers
<theslipperman@thebarattheendoftheuniverse.org> wrote:

On Mon, 14 Mar 2011 18:43:18 -0700, John Larkin
jjlarkin@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:

LNG doesn't need to be at high pressure. It only needs to be cold.

Idiot! It has to be at high pressure in order to be in liquid state as
well!

LNG is at atmospheric pressure at -161C. Look it up.

That is why an LN (Liquid Nitrogen) truck that delivers cold stuff to
the laboratory IS an insulated, chilled tanker, and the LNG (Liquified
Natural Gas) truck IS NOT.

LNG is usually shipped cold. Its critical point is -83C, but you
probably don't know what that means.

John

 

[John Larkin]

On Mon, 14 Mar 2011 18:59:07 -0700, Chieftain of the Carpet Crawlers
<theslipperman@thebarattheendoftheuniverse.org> wrote:

On Mon, 14 Mar 2011 18:44:59 -0700, John Larkin
jjlarkin@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:

On Mon, 14 Mar 2011 17:48:14 -0700, Chieftain of the Carpet Crawlers
theslipperman@thebarattheendoftheuniverse.org> wrote:


Far better to use a standard reciprocating piston engine and compressed
Hydrogen.

I would sit at home, watching TV, and pumping the exercise bike to run
the H O separator each night.

Do the math on that! Oh, I forgot, you don't do math.

John


So, you now have a problem with a standard engine using Hydrogen as a
fuel?

It's been doen, but it doesn't make sense. You're certainly not going
to generate any useful amount of hydrogen by pedaling a generator.

John

 

[krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz]

On Mon, 14 Mar 2011 19:33:42 -0700, John Larkin
<jjlarkin@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:

On Mon, 14 Mar 2011 18:56:32 -0700, Chieftain of the Carpet Crawlers
theslipperman@thebarattheendoftheuniverse.org> wrote:

On Mon, 14 Mar 2011 18:43:18 -0700, John Larkin
jjlarkin@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:

LNG doesn't need to be at high pressure. It only needs to be cold.

Idiot! It has to be at high pressure in order to be in liquid state as
well!

LNG is at atmospheric pressure at -161C. Look it up.

What do you expect from AlwaysWrong?

That is why an LN (Liquid Nitrogen) truck that delivers cold stuff to
the laboratory IS an insulated, chilled tanker, and the LNG (Liquified
Natural Gas) truck IS NOT.

LNG is usually shipped cold. Its critical point is -83C, but you
probably don't know what that means.

Surely not.

 

[Chieftain of the Carpet C]

On Mon, 14 Mar 2011 19:33:42 -0700, John Larkin
<jjlarkin@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:

On Mon, 14 Mar 2011 18:56:32 -0700, Chieftain of the Carpet Crawlers
theslipperman@thebarattheendoftheuniverse.org> wrote:

On Mon, 14 Mar 2011 18:43:18 -0700, John Larkin
jjlarkin@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:

LNG doesn't need to be at high pressure. It only needs to be cold.

Idiot! It has to be at high pressure in order to be in liquid state as
well!

LNG is at atmospheric pressure at -161C. Look it up.


That is why an LN (Liquid Nitrogen) truck that delivers cold stuff to
the laboratory IS an insulated, chilled tanker, and the LNG (Liquified
Natural Gas) truck IS NOT.

LNG is usually shipped cold. Its critical point is -83C, but you
probably don't know what that means.

John

I worked in Infra-red thermometry back when imagers required a liquid
nitrogen bath.

I also worked in refrigeration and have made chambers the length of
missiles (over 100 feet). I have made cascaded cooling systems that go
to a couple hundred below. Something you might have seen once if you
opened the grill on the thermal chamber, and actually knew what you were
looking at. I also made the hyper-hypothermia machines
that doctors used to do open hearth surgery with. Now, they place a
thermal catheter right directly into your vein/artery. They can chill or
revive a patient far faster than the hyper-hypothermia machine did it.
Direct contact with the blood and all.

I wish that clot in your brain would reach its critical point.

 

[Capt. Cave Man]

On Mon, 14 Mar 2011 19:35:31 -0700, John Larkin
<jjlarkin@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:

On Mon, 14 Mar 2011 18:59:07 -0700, Chieftain of the Carpet Crawlers
theslipperman@thebarattheendoftheuniverse.org> wrote:

On Mon, 14 Mar 2011 18:44:59 -0700, John Larkin
jjlarkin@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:

On Mon, 14 Mar 2011 17:48:14 -0700, Chieftain of the Carpet Crawlers
theslipperman@thebarattheendoftheuniverse.org> wrote:


Far better to use a standard reciprocating piston engine and compressed
Hydrogen.

I would sit at home, watching TV, and pumping the exercise bike to run
the H O separator each night.

Do the math on that! Oh, I forgot, you don't do math.

John


So, you now have a problem with a standard engine using Hydrogen as a
fuel?

It's been doen, but it doesn't make sense. You're certainly not going
to generate any useful amount of hydrogen by pedaling a generator.

John

The generator is for a battery set, idiot. Like a diesel locomotive,
but stationary. The battery operates the separator, and the separated
gasses get gathered in tanks. Eventually, that gets compressed into one
of the tanks on the work device. Gather solar during the day as well,
and even tidal energy. The key is that one slowly fills the water tower,
then gets to use the water.

You do understand analogies, right?

Note too that I never said that this would supply the entire need for
the device in question. I am a penny miser. You are the guy that
doesn't even know how to use a vapor phase degreaser.

I could get down the road with a 47cc engine on my bike, Hydrogen fired
in as a fuel injection set up. Clean plugs forever, always starts every
time. Hell, I could even set it up as an on demand engine that I start
only when I need it and kill otherwise. I'll bet I could get the 11 miles
to work on a mere couple cubic feet of H each way. I wonder if a Hydrgen
fueled engine gets wild on a shot of Nitrous Oxide, the way Petroleum
fuels do. I don't think that Hydrogen has the same pre-ignition issues.

I'll bet that you can compress warm (hot) hydrogen pretty damn good,
and fire it exactly when you want to. No carbon build ups in the CC
either. Clean motor... hmmmmmm... Purrrrrr... Makes me wonder about
a two stroke set-up. Kinda like the Cox airplane motors.

Have you seen the mini V-12s?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mutb7KgA9NM&feature=related

 

[John - KD5YI]

On 3/14/2011 10:08 PM, Chieftain of the Carpet Crawlers wrote:

On Mon, 14 Mar 2011 19:33:42 -0700, John Larkin
jjlarkin@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:

On Mon, 14 Mar 2011 18:56:32 -0700, Chieftain of the Carpet Crawlers
theslipperman@thebarattheendoftheuniverse.org> wrote:

On Mon, 14 Mar 2011 18:43:18 -0700, John Larkin
jjlarkin@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:

LNG doesn't need to be at high pressure. It only needs to be cold.

Idiot! It has to be at high pressure in order to be in liquid state as
well!

LNG is at atmospheric pressure at -161C. Look it up.


That is why an LN (Liquid Nitrogen) truck that delivers cold stuff to
the laboratory IS an insulated, chilled tanker, and the LNG (Liquified
Natural Gas) truck IS NOT.

LNG is usually shipped cold. Its critical point is -83C, but you
probably don't know what that means.

John

I worked in Infra-red thermometry back when imagers required a liquid
nitrogen bath.

I also worked in refrigeration and have made chambers the length of
missiles (over 100 feet). I have made cascaded cooling systems that go
to a couple hundred below. Something you might have seen once if you
opened the grill on the thermal chamber, and actually knew what you were
looking at. I also made the hyper-hypothermia machines
that doctors used to do open hearth surgery with. Now, they place a
thermal catheter right directly into your vein/artery. They can chill or
revive a patient far faster than the hyper-hypothermia machine did it.
Direct contact with the blood and all.

I wish that clot in your brain would reach its critical point.

Uh Oh! Fantasizing about someone else's anatomy. Why don't you take that
cell phone out of your ass and turn it off vibrate?

 

[Chieftain of the Carpet C]

On Mon, 14 Mar 2011 22:28:15 -0500, John - KD5YI <sophi.2@invalid.org>
wrote:

Why don't you take that
cell phone out of your ass and turn it off vibrate?

I do not have a cell phone (one out in the garage in a box that is 7
years old, and one Original Motorola 'Brick' mint collector's item --
they don't count).

You're an idiot. The funny thing is that you are so full of yourself.
The sad part of that is that you are so goddamned dumb and that is what
you are full of.

 

[John - KD5YI]

On 3/14/2011 10:54 PM, Chieftain of the Carpet Crawlers wrote:

On Mon, 14 Mar 2011 22:28:15 -0500, John - KD5YI<sophi.2@invalid.org
wrote:

Why don't you take that
cell phone out of your ass and turn it off vibrate?

I do not have a cell phone (one out in the garage in a box that is 7
years old, and one Original Motorola 'Brick' mint collector's item --
they don't count).

You're an idiot. The funny thing is that you are so full of yourself.
The sad part of that is that you are so goddamned dumb and that is what
you are full of.

As JL says, "Word Salad". You are getting boring again. Try to improve
your repertoire. Since your limited intelligence prevents you from
knowing the word...

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/repertoire

 

[Michael A. Terrell]

"krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz" wrote:

On Mon, 14 Mar 2011 19:33:42 -0700, John Larkin
jjlarkin@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:

On Mon, 14 Mar 2011 18:56:32 -0700, Chieftain of the Carpet Crawlers
theslipperman@thebarattheendoftheuniverse.org> wrote:

On Mon, 14 Mar 2011 18:43:18 -0700, John Larkin
jjlarkin@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:

LNG doesn't need to be at high pressure. It only needs to be cold.

Idiot! It has to be at high pressure in order to be in liquid state as
well!

LNG is at atmospheric pressure at -161C. Look it up.

What do you expect from AlwaysWrong?

About as much as I expect from WEESTOM. Less than nothing.


--
You can't fix stupid. You can't even put a Band-Aid™ on it, because it's
Teflon coated.

 

[Robert Baer]

Greegor wrote:

http://www.flixxy.com/zero-pollution-automobile.htm

http://www.mdi.lu/english/

http://edition.cnn.com/video/#/video/international/2010/10/27/ef.air.pod.car.bk.c.cnn

Car powered by compressed air.

French Company MDI, Cyril and Gee Negre, Motor Development
International

Euros 7K or $15K US per car, called "Airpod"

They have a compressor which can be run from
the released air before venting to recover some
more of the stored energy.

It looks very light and the front wheel diameter worries me.

Would a beefier version of this work for US Commuters, trucks, etc?

What would the drawbacks of such technology be?
"Zero pollution" for a car or other transportation device is

impossible; ask where the F does the energy come from and then ask about
the pollution created by the whole generator system.
Farts (aka compressed air) are more direct and cleaner.

 

[Chieftain of the Carpet C]

On Mon, 14 Mar 2011 23:07:52 -0500, John - KD5YI <sophi.2@invalid.org>
wrote:

On 3/14/2011 10:54 PM, Chieftain of the Carpet Crawlers wrote:
On Mon, 14 Mar 2011 22:28:15 -0500, John - KD5YI<sophi.2@invalid.org
wrote:

Why don't you take that
cell phone out of your ass and turn it off vibrate?

I do not have a cell phone (one out in the garage in a box that is 7
years old, and one Original Motorola 'Brick' mint collector's item --
they don't count).

You're an idiot. The funny thing is that you are so full of yourself.
The sad part of that is that you are so goddamned dumb and that is what
you are full of.

As JL says, "Word Salad".

JL is no different than you. A mere immature little bitch.

You are getting boring

You have always been nothing but boring.

again. Try to improve
your repertoire.

You never had one. Ass is always ass, ass.

Since your limited intelligence prevents you from
knowing the word...

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/repertoire

You'd like to think so. Sorry, chump.

 

[Wimpie]

On 15 mar, 01:52, Chieftain of the Carpet Crawlers
<theslipper...@thebarattheendoftheuniverse.org> wrote:

On Mon, 14 Mar 2011 08:52:02 -0700 (PDT), Wimpie <wimabc...@tetech.nl
wrote:



On 14 mar, 15:21, Phil Hobbs <pcdhSpamMeSensel...@electrooptical.net
wrote:
Chieftain of the Carpet Crawlers wrote:

They mention to have approval for road use and they use same type of
cylinders as used for natural gas. They also mention rupture pressures
700bar.

We have public transport and private cars that run on CNG, as far as I
know, without accidents involving failure of the gas cylinders. The
cylinders are on top of the bus.

Probably you know the Seoul bus explosion.

Best regards,

Wim
PA3DJS
www.tetech.nl

  CNG tanks are NOT 5000 psi cylinders. (If they are, they gas is
certainly not being kept at that level.

  LNG is at a higher pressure.

Hello,

I just mentioned some info from MDI's website. I know CNG pressure
used over here for transport (Netherlands) is around 200 bar (2900
psi).


Wim
PA3DJS
www.tetech.n

 

[ChrisQ]

Wimpie wrote:

Hello,

I just mentioned some info from MDI's website. I know CNG pressure
used over here for transport (Netherlands) is around 200 bar (2900
psi).


Wim
PA3DJS
www.tetech.n

Sounds about right. There might be some confusion between liquified
natural gas and stuff like liquified butane, which is about 60psi at
room temperature. Drops to a very low value at lower temperatures, as
can be confirmed by anyone who has a used a butane torch or stove...

Regards,

Chris

 

[Wimpie]

On 15 mar, 01:22, John - KD5YI <soph...@invalid.org> wrote:

On 3/14/2011 5:11 AM, Greegor wrote:

Somebody commented that to get 100 HP
output the compressor would burn 800 HP
worth of electricity.

Is that true?

It might be, but I don't know offhand. Consider that, when you compress
air, it heats up. Most compressors have fins for cooling. This implies
that there is a large heat loss in the compression process. So, it seems
to me that you start off with a loss before you ever get around to
putting it in the engine.

We could make some calculations, if we weren't too lazy

Cheers,
John

Hello John,

Many installed pneumatic systems for air power were not designed for
highest efficiency, so overall efficiency of current installations can
be really low.

Without the formulas, but with some (optimistic?) numbers:

When you compress air to 350 bar at room temperature with say 10 MJ
mechanically applied energy to the gas, you have to remove 6.22 MJ
(ignoring condensation energy). Assuming about 60% compressor
efficiency (friction, leakage, motor loss) you need to apply10/0.6 =
17MJ.

If you expand that air very slowly (isothermally), so that heat from
the environment can heat up the gas back to ambient temperature, you
will get you 10 MJ back. 6.22 MJ of heat flows from the environment
back into the gas.

In real world it will be in between adiabatic and isothermal
(polytropic), as extracting significant heat power from the
environment is not an easy task if you don't have space. Let us assume
70% efficiency.

So for 17MJ input (from the mains), you get 7 MJ output. This isn't
impressive (compared to electric options). Together with the energy
density of the air cylinders (about 28 MJ for 175 liters), compressed
air cars will not be the future in my opinion.

Wim
PA3DJS
www.tetech.nl

 

[John - KD5YI]

On 3/15/2011 7:09 AM, Wimpie wrote:

On 15 mar, 01:22, John - KD5YI<soph...@invalid.org> wrote:
On 3/14/2011 5:11 AM, Greegor wrote:

Somebody commented that to get 100 HP
output the compressor would burn 800 HP
worth of electricity.

Is that true?

It might be, but I don't know offhand. Consider that, when you compress
air, it heats up. Most compressors have fins for cooling. This implies
that there is a large heat loss in the compression process. So, it seems
to me that you start off with a loss before you ever get around to
putting it in the engine.

We could make some calculations, if we weren't too lazy

Cheers,
John

Hello John,

Many installed pneumatic systems for air power were not designed for
highest efficiency, so overall efficiency of current installations can
be really low.

Without the formulas, but with some (optimistic?) numbers:

When you compress air to 350 bar at room temperature with say 10 MJ
mechanically applied energy to the gas, you have to remove 6.22 MJ
(ignoring condensation energy). Assuming about 60% compressor
efficiency (friction, leakage, motor loss) you need to apply10/0.6 =
17MJ.

If you expand that air very slowly (isothermally), so that heat from
the environment can heat up the gas back to ambient temperature, you
will get you 10 MJ back. 6.22 MJ of heat flows from the environment
back into the gas.

In real world it will be in between adiabatic and isothermal
(polytropic), as extracting significant heat power from the
environment is not an easy task if you don't have space. Let us assume
70% efficiency.

So for 17MJ input (from the mains), you get 7 MJ output. This isn't
impressive (compared to electric options). Together with the energy
density of the air cylinders (about 28 MJ for 175 liters), compressed
air cars will not be the future in my opinion.

Wim
PA3DJS
www.tetech.nl

Hi, Wim -

Looks like reasonable numbers to me. I also read your post with numbers
elsewhere in this thread. Thanks for the info. Very interesting.

John

 

[John Larkin]

On Mon, 14 Mar 2011 20:27:33 -0700, Capt. Cave Man
<ItIsSoEasyACaveManCanDoIt@upyers.org> wrote:

On Mon, 14 Mar 2011 19:35:31 -0700, John Larkin
jjlarkin@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:

On Mon, 14 Mar 2011 18:59:07 -0700, Chieftain of the Carpet Crawlers
theslipperman@thebarattheendoftheuniverse.org> wrote:

On Mon, 14 Mar 2011 18:44:59 -0700, John Larkin
jjlarkin@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:

On Mon, 14 Mar 2011 17:48:14 -0700, Chieftain of the Carpet Crawlers
theslipperman@thebarattheendoftheuniverse.org> wrote:


Far better to use a standard reciprocating piston engine and compressed
Hydrogen.

I would sit at home, watching TV, and pumping the exercise bike to run
the H O separator each night.

Do the math on that! Oh, I forgot, you don't do math.

John


So, you now have a problem with a standard engine using Hydrogen as a
fuel?

It's been doen, but it doesn't make sense. You're certainly not going
to generate any useful amount of hydrogen by pedaling a generator.

John

The generator is for a battery set, idiot. Like a diesel locomotive,
but stationary. The battery operates the separator, and the separated
gasses get gathered in tanks. Eventually, that gets compressed into one
of the tanks on the work device. Gather solar during the day as well,
and even tidal energy. The key is that one slowly fills the water tower,
then gets to use the water.

You do understand analogies, right?

I prefer math. If you want to pedal to work, a bicycle would be
roughly 20x as efficient as the rig you propose.

John

 

[krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz]

On Tue, 15 Mar 2011 12:40:48 -0700, John Larkin
<jjlarkin@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:

On Mon, 14 Mar 2011 20:27:33 -0700, Capt. Cave Man
ItIsSoEasyACaveManCanDoIt@upyers.org> wrote:

On Mon, 14 Mar 2011 19:35:31 -0700, John Larkin
jjlarkin@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:

On Mon, 14 Mar 2011 18:59:07 -0700, Chieftain of the Carpet Crawlers
theslipperman@thebarattheendoftheuniverse.org> wrote:

On Mon, 14 Mar 2011 18:44:59 -0700, John Larkin
jjlarkin@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:

On Mon, 14 Mar 2011 17:48:14 -0700, Chieftain of the Carpet Crawlers
theslipperman@thebarattheendoftheuniverse.org> wrote:


Far better to use a standard reciprocating piston engine and compressed
Hydrogen.

I would sit at home, watching TV, and pumping the exercise bike to run
the H O separator each night.

Do the math on that! Oh, I forgot, you don't do math.

John


So, you now have a problem with a standard engine using Hydrogen as a
fuel?

It's been doen, but it doesn't make sense. You're certainly not going
to generate any useful amount of hydrogen by pedaling a generator.

John

The generator is for a battery set, idiot. Like a diesel locomotive,
but stationary. The battery operates the separator, and the separated
gasses get gathered in tanks. Eventually, that gets compressed into one
of the tanks on the work device. Gather solar during the day as well,
and even tidal energy. The key is that one slowly fills the water tower,
then gets to use the water.

You do understand analogies, right?

I prefer math. If you want to pedal to work, a bicycle would be
roughly 20x as efficient as the rig you propose.

Is DimBulb food free?